unless you are crazy, or have money to burn, or are extremely careful, this 2k+ lens should have a filter in front of that front element.Whether you want to act like a purist, or dont like filters for whatever reason (yawn), i cant see a good reason why it shouldn tbe there. Well, if yer not cheap about it anyways.

No, the whole point of cling wrap is that it's thinner than any filter and helps with the weather sealing. Also, I used to gel my flash, but with the new colored cling wraps, I can get that effect across the whole picture, and that's a lot easier than just adjusting the hue in post.

Even more important, my US$13,000 600/4 II can't even take a front filter. How lame is that?!? Fortunately, cling wrap works just fine.

Thanks. Interesting. There seems to be a lot of difference between what happens in the US and what happens in the Far East, at least at pro journo level. I am in numerous press conferences every week, major sporting events frequently and have never seen anyone use cling film (or wrap as you call it). Mind you, I have never seen coloured cling film either. Live and learn.

And, why would you want a filter on your 600/4? The lens hood is big enough as it is.

Because I love cling wrap. I put it on my camera lenses, on my microscope objectives at work costing far more than the 600 II, on my sunglasses, on the windshield of my car and on the windows of my house. I just can't get enough of it. I'm thinking of wrapping my whole house in cling wrap, and then maybe my cat. Meow.

And because I'm honestly afraid that you still might not get it, the whole line of discussion around cling wrap, starting from where the sardine sandwiches didn't turn green, is satire.

Yuk it up, these are the jokes.

May be mandatory use of <sarcasm/> or <satire/> or plain <humour/> is in order

Oh, I voted no as now I have no filters permanently fitted on my lenses. Earlier I had and I can see the ones I used did cause degradation of the image. Some time soon (or later) I will look into getting some good filters...

Voted yes but it's not a uv filter but a clear filter. No need for uv filter (cuts off light unnecessarily) as the sensor has a uv coating, and a good clear filter does not affect IQ. I'm using B+W xs-pro clear MRC filter on all my lenses.

Voted yes but it's not a uv filter but a clear filter. No need for uv filter (cuts off light unnecessarily) as the sensor has a uv coating, and a good clear filter does not affect IQ. I'm using B+W xs-pro clear MRC filter on all my lenses.

A UV filter doesn't cut off any light which the sensor can detect - as you state, a dSLR is basically insensitive to UV. A multicoated UV and clear filter from the same maker will have the same visible light transmittance (usually ~99%). For a dSLR, there is no difference between UV and clear in terms of optics. So...pick whichever is cheaper at your chosen source (it varies by country and seller).

It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.

Lets put this into perspective.

For the ones that have it permanently on do you guys buy the paint protection for your brand new car as well?How about eye protection when you go out of your house. After all your eyes are more important than any L lens.

This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.The most infuriating thing for me is filters on the 18-55mm efs kit lens. Who here would seriously recommend for someone to use a filter on this lens?

It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.

Lets put this into perspective.

For the ones that have it permanently on do you guys buy the paint protection for your brand new car as well?How about eye protection when you go out of your house. After all your eyes are more important than any L lens.

This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.The most infuriating thing for me is filters on the 18-55mm efs kit lens. Who here would seriously recommend for someone to use a filter on this lens?

It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.

Lets put this into perspective.

For the ones that have it permanently on do you guys buy the paint protection for your brand new car as well?How about eye protection when you go out of your house. After all your eyes are more important than any L lens.

This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.The most infuriating thing for me is filters on the 18-55mm efs kit lens. Who here would seriously recommend for someone to use a filter on this lens?

This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.

Hmmmm...I wonder if bubble wrap would work better than cling wrap?

That's another technique I use often. It works like a compound eye and apart from an increased angle of view I find sometimes I can detect the light polarisation and later post-process, instead of carrying around an expensive CP that of course also loses some stops of light.

The fact that people using filters as protection bothers you? That concerns me more than anything.

I don't like sales people recommending filters for efs kit lenses as everyday protection. Cheap filters degrade quality and I learnt first hand when i got my 40D a few years ago.

There are hazardous situations that you will need protection which is fair enough but i don't think most of us here shoot in those conditions day in day out.

I got you now. Yes I suppose it would be irritating if a sales pitch "heightened" the need for them, when it may not be so serious of a matter. Actually, most of the "filters" I use are ND or CP's. But of course those are special situations.